Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Nnanji ORIGINAL: thompsonx Shooting to wound or to warn also, in court, lends credence to the idea that you didn't have fear for your life. Really????how so??? In California law...you look it up, I have...the Castle Doctrine states that you may use deadly force if you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. The law presumes you had the right to use deadly force unless the prosecutor can provide contrary evidence. This is in the law Shooting to wound is such evidence, shooting warning shots is such evidence. Actually, shooting to warn turns the roles around and legally provides the home invader with evidence that his/her life is in imminent danger. This is not the law in fact the law is the exact opposit. So clearly you have not looked up the law. 3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. Ya, it the law, upheld at the appellate level and, in fact, part of the jury instructions a judge has to provide the jury.
|